Professor Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico backed by a team of international scientists has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.

Astonishingly, the 1909 greenhouse gas experiment first performed by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University hadn’t been replicated for a century. This despite over $100 billion spent by the man-made global warming industry trying to prove its case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous atmospheric pollutant.

The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.

Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin

At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along. After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.

Updated below with comments by Nasif S. Nahle
Indeed, it is the glass of the lab flask (or ‘greenhouse’) that caused the “trapped” radiation all along. The flask (or greenhouse) being what scientists refer to as a ‘closed system’; while Earth’s atmosphere isn’t closed at all but rather open to space allowing heat energy to freely escape.

Nahle’s findings shoot holes in claims of Professor Pratt of Stanford University whose own replication of Wood’s experiment was touted as the first official reconstruction of Wood’s test for a century. Pratt claimed he had disproved Wood’s findings.

“This is the reason that I decided to repeat the experiment of Professor Pratt to either falsify or verify his results and those of Professor Wood,“ says the Mexican professor at the Biology Cabinet.

The Monterrey science research institute also recreated Wood’s test into the effect of longwave infrared radiation trapped inside a greenhouse. Unlike Pratt it found that Wood’s findings were correct, absolutely valid and systematically repeatable. The Bio Cab man affirms, “ the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.”

Put simply, one of the aforementioned professors has their reputation perilously on the line and Nahle is gunning for an explanation from his U.S. Rival. A clue to the outcome: Pratt isn't even qualified in science - he's a (warmist) mathematician specializing in computers.

Satellite Records Back Up Mexican Findings

Professor Nahle’s findings will come as no surprise to anyone who is up to speed with the other big climate story that has raised huge doubts over any so-called greenhouse effect. NASA now admits global warming just isn’t happening despite ever-rising levels of CO2.

Laughably, the once illustrious U.S. space agency is blaming no warming this century on China. The rapidly industrializing nation is emitting so much sulfur dioxide that it is “cooling” our planet, they say.

Back Story of Greenhouse Gas Mythology

Professor Wood’s science held sway until the mid 1930's after he proved that on average, the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings causes an increase of temperature inside the greenhouses of 10.03 °C with respect to the surroundings temperature.

After World War Two interest in the GHE was briefly resurrected again. But the American Meteorological Society shot this down in 1951 after it reviewed all the available data and produced the "Compendium of Meteorology" appearing to kill off the cultist claims.

However, fearmongers were finally able to resurrect the notion of a GHE in the mid 1980's when a certain ‘science adviser’ to Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Monckton (not then a Lord), helped promote the idea so as to aid the defeat of Britain’s striking coal miners.

Three Sides in the Climate Argument and Two are Wrong

Lord Monckton has fastidiously stood by his position that there is GHE despite prominently publishing his own findings that it just isn’t there. He finds himself on one of three sides at war in the great global warming debate and only one can be right.

Monckton along with other skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer have been labeled ‘lukewarmists’ for their stubborn adherence that there must be ‘some’ warming, however small caused by CO2. They are unlikely climate bedfellows with the likes of Professor Pratt and are opposed to the ‘Slayers’ group of GHE skeptics of which Professor Nahle has become increasingly prominent.

Another rising star of the Slayers group of scientists, Joe Postma concurs with Nahle’s results and says, “I will never be convinced of a radiative greenhouse effect without experimental proof. As it is, I have proven how the standard application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which ostensibly explains the greenhouse effect is a complete fiction and tautology.”

Strident Slayers Begin Global Science Association

Postma and Nahle join long-standing GHE skeptics, Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder as they prepare to formally launch a new global research association, Principia Scientific International (PSI) recruiting untold numbers of conscientious scientists sickened by endemic corruption within science.

Nahle’s new paper buttresses Siddons’ arguments and is earmarked to set the tone of the ‘no holds barred’ style of PSI, which will be set up as an independent (non-governmental) organization eschewing political interference. With a mission to uphold the scientific method with objectivity and transparency Nahle and his PSI compatriots insist empirical experimental research as the only means to prevail over dogmatic (government financed) junk science.

The new organization will be looking for other challenges once the mainstream finally accepts that it has slayed the climate fraud. But Siddons insists, “greenhouse theory and its associated alarmism only persist because of a stubborn refusal to question the following two assumptions below.

Reality: Such gases radiate, i.e., “scatter” or spread out the light they absorb, thus releasing light in all directions rather than blocking it.

Assumption Two: Blocking the exit of light while allowing free entry will increase the temperature of an irradiated object.”

Reality: The light an object emits is a function of its temperature; its temperature is not a function of the light it emits. Accordingly, if incoming light raises an object to a certain temperature, the object will remain at that temperature whether it emits light to its surroundings or not. Any temperature increase in a confined condition is only due to reduced convective cooling.”

Such clear cut and plain-speaking objectivity, plus a wholesale return to the traditional scientific method, is the only acceptable paradigm for this emerging intellectual and scientific force.